FNMA Opinions 08/28/2014 16:29:40 $FNMA
Well-put...marked ya for it
I fail to see where the U.S. "screwed" anybody. FnF pre-conservatorship were pretty much valueless. You can argue until the cows come home about how much TBTF bank actions and/or favoritism enter into the cause/effect discussion, but Hank Paulsen's account, as well as Ben Bernanke's and MANY other experts, clearly predict a Depression without a massive intervention which few felt would ever see ANY recovery for the government. Those are facts, not just my opinion.
Whatever sweep proceeds go the the U.S. Treasury, I frankly do not see anything going to any individual for personal gain. I haven't seen Mel Watt's name on any real estate purchase summary for mansions in The Hamptons.
FNMA Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Fannie-Mae-FNMA-61730/
I completely agree that the hedge funds are no angels and it just so happens they are on the "right" side of this situation. Just circumstance I suppose. None the less, that is their nature and no one should be under any false guise about what the hedge funds goals are.
We should be able to ALSO assume the govt would be acting on our behalf at all times as well. This is why it is such a concerning situation to some. They trusted in the govt, as they should and were failed by them.
If we get screwed by a hedge fund, so be it.
If we get screwed by our own employees in DC, shame on all of us.
You are up 730%, and the U.S. is up just a smidgen above 100%.
I am happy for you. Kudos. And I will be happy when the U.S. Treasury enjoys swept money that matches your enormous returns.
I bet you didn't bail out FnF with $ billions of bailout funds, so at least show some respect for the U.S. who likely saved you from a total loss.
I think he doesn't want to. It's better for both parties to let courts decide. The republicans started the mess, but then the democrats created more. They can blame the hedgefunds for being greedy and suing for release. Everybody wins as long as the information isn't incriminating.
Yes they do. And those are the ones I tend to ignore with any information they provide.
The guy that said take profits yesterday when it got the 4's cas tomorrow it be back to 3.87 !! Just like he said.. Man!!! Was he spot on!!
Prior to the conservancy as an emergency measure, the government did NOT have any oversight over FnF who were private enterprises. Right?
When the entire economy was threatened with a meltdown and collapse of banking and financial markets, all manner of drastic, immediate measures were undertaken to avoid spinning the U.S. into another Great Depression. Some were good measures, some in retrospect were not. But NO action would have had disastrous consequences. Right?
Much of the meltdown was, in fact, a result of banks operating under self-serving policies and the U.S. government dictating socially engineered laws and direction once the conservatorship was set in place, that contributed to FnF's woes. I agree with that view.
But to claim that the government "stole" from its citizens is absurd and to claim that hedge funds have some moral superiority under the law is a farce of almost biblical proportions.
JMHO.
I saw a few 10,000 share orders go thru in the last minute, but never saw those numbers on my platform on either buy or sell side
Exactly
Thank you.
Thank you
Lol thanks
Yea!!! Close at LOD!! Tomorrow not looking good!! Pisses me off!!
Brilliant post.
Heedunk, isn't there a board for all time lamest posts. If not your post can start it. Even the worst basher puts forth more effort.
Not so fast. On the contrary, the BOD's of both companies had much to say in the matter, per the Pershing court filing - page 13 item 40,
Quote:
Upon information and belief, FHFA obtained the consent of the companies' boards of directors to conservatorship in part on the ground that conservatorship would serve the interests of their shareholders. Conservatorship, unlike receivership, does not "terminate" the rights of shareholders. Id. § 4617(b)(2)(K)(i). Upon information and belief, in exchange for FHFA's promise, the companies' boards agreed not to challenge FHFA's status as conservator.
p.13, Items 40, 41 & 42 from Ackman's Complaint:
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014...aint-2.pdf
Furthermore:
1. Conservatorship was illegal. HERA states 12 grounds for conservatorship. None of these were met.
2. FHFA was not operating as an independent agency as directed by HERA. It was taking it's marching orders from the Executive Branch.
3. Gov used intimidation and coercion to 'obtain consent'. BOD 'consent' was by no means voluntary as indicated in the Berman lawsuit:
Quote:
69. Despite admitting to having “analyzed in great detail the current financial condition of the GSEs” for a four-week period prior to the imposition of the conservatorships, the Government intended to keep this plan secret until the last possible minute. As explained in Secretary Paulson’s memoir, On the Brink, the Secretary met with President George W. Bush only three days before the conservatorships were publicly announced and told him that “[w]e’re going to move quickly and take them by surprise. The first sound they’ll hear is their heads hitting the floor.”
70. In his September 7, 2008 statement announcing this unprecedented Government action, Lockhart misleadingly stated that “ he Boards of both companies consented yesterday to the conservatorship.” However, the Board’s “consent” was by no means voluntary. On the contrary, it was obtained through intimidation and coercion by the Government. Just two days prior to the September 7th announcement, Paulson and other top governmental officials had summoned the senior executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to secret meetings, where they were told that they would either accept Government control within 24 hours or the Government would impose it by force. Paulson misleadingly told them that “[w]e have the grounds to do this on an involuntary basis, and we will go that course if needed.”
71. In a 2009 speech, Mudd explained that “we were given 24 hours to accede to a government takeover – or else the government would effectively go to war against the company.” The FCIC concluded that “[e]ssentially the GSEs faced a Hobson’s choice: take the horse offered or none at all.” Secretary Paulson himself told the Commission that the Government team made “a very strong case so the board of directors did not have a choice” and that he told the Companies that, while the Government had authority to inject capital into them, it would not do so unless they were in conservatorship. This was a dramatically different scenario than what recently had been described by Senator Isakson, in explaining the intention of HERA, as granting “access to the Treasury window” much like the access to capital that is given to banks. In fact, the access to capital from the Treasury was being provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on far more onerous and extremely costly terms, which were severely detrimental to the private property interests of their shareholders, and the boards of directors at the Companies were not given any real choice in the matter. As Paulson later explained to the FCIC, “I believed the very best way to get them to agree on a friendly basis was to say ‘there’s a hard way and an easy way, and we hope and expect them to take [the] easy way. Which they did.[’]”
http://www.restorefanniemae.us/berman
4. In addition, "Treasury exercised it's emergency authority to purchase securities of the companies". A state of emergency at that time did not exist. A state of emergency had not, at any time, been declared by the Federal Government. Warrants are null and void.
Quote:
As far as an "agreement" being made...it was pointed out that I was incorrect when the warrants were actually issued...it was AFTER the boards agreed to conservatorship. So...based on that, the BOD of both companies had no say in the matter...the director of FHFA was in total control and had/has absolute power of decision.
Per the Pershing court filing - page 13 item 41 & 42
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014...aint-2.pdf
Now the question is...did FHFA lie to the BOD...or did the BOD agree prior to C-ship...we don't know. I don't think there is a public record of those conversations...could be there is...maybe we will get some good stuff about this coming out in court. I would venture we will never know that answer, but I would certainly like to know if the BOD tossed us under the bus as well to appease the political machine.
Those bollies are getting really tight!
I'm long and up 730%. I'm not an old lady either.
Well-put...marked ya for it
I fail to see where the U.S. "screwed" anybody. FnF pre-conservatorship were pretty much valueless. You can argue until the cows come home about how much TBTF bank actions and/or favoritism enter into the cause/effect discussion, but Hank Paulsen's account, as well as Ben Bernanke's and MANY other experts, clearly predict a Depression without a massive intervention which few felt would ever see ANY recovery for the government. Those are facts, not just my opinion.
Whatever sweep proceeds go the the U.S. Treasury, I frankly do not see anything going to any individual for personal gain. I haven't seen Mel Watt's name on any real estate purchase summary for mansions in The Hamptons.
FNMA Stock Message Board http://investorshangout.com/Fannie-Mae-FNMA-61730/
I completely agree that the hedge funds are no angels and it just so happens they are on the "right" side of this situation. Just circumstance I suppose. None the less, that is their nature and no one should be under any false guise about what the hedge funds goals are.
We should be able to ALSO assume the govt would be acting on our behalf at all times as well. This is why it is such a concerning situation to some. They trusted in the govt, as they should and were failed by them.
If we get screwed by a hedge fund, so be it.
If we get screwed by our own employees in DC, shame on all of us.
You are up 730%, and the U.S. is up just a smidgen above 100%.
I am happy for you. Kudos. And I will be happy when the U.S. Treasury enjoys swept money that matches your enormous returns.
I bet you didn't bail out FnF with $ billions of bailout funds, so at least show some respect for the U.S. who likely saved you from a total loss.
I think he doesn't want to. It's better for both parties to let courts decide. The republicans started the mess, but then the democrats created more. They can blame the hedgefunds for being greedy and suing for release. Everybody wins as long as the information isn't incriminating.
Yes they do. And those are the ones I tend to ignore with any information they provide.
The guy that said take profits yesterday when it got the 4's cas tomorrow it be back to 3.87 !! Just like he said.. Man!!! Was he spot on!!
Prior to the conservancy as an emergency measure, the government did NOT have any oversight over FnF who were private enterprises. Right?
When the entire economy was threatened with a meltdown and collapse of banking and financial markets, all manner of drastic, immediate measures were undertaken to avoid spinning the U.S. into another Great Depression. Some were good measures, some in retrospect were not. But NO action would have had disastrous consequences. Right?
Much of the meltdown was, in fact, a result of banks operating under self-serving policies and the U.S. government dictating socially engineered laws and direction once the conservatorship was set in place, that contributed to FnF's woes. I agree with that view.
But to claim that the government "stole" from its citizens is absurd and to claim that hedge funds have some moral superiority under the law is a farce of almost biblical proportions.
JMHO.
I saw a few 10,000 share orders go thru in the last minute, but never saw those numbers on my platform on either buy or sell side
Exactly
Thank you.
Thank you
Lol thanks
Yea!!! Close at LOD!! Tomorrow not looking good!! Pisses me off!!
Brilliant post.
Heedunk, isn't there a board for all time lamest posts. If not your post can start it. Even the worst basher puts forth more effort.
Not so fast. On the contrary, the BOD's of both companies had much to say in the matter, per the Pershing court filing - page 13 item 40,
Quote:
Upon information and belief, FHFA obtained the consent of the companies' boards of directors to conservatorship in part on the ground that conservatorship would serve the interests of their shareholders. Conservatorship, unlike receivership, does not "terminate" the rights of shareholders. Id. § 4617(b)(2)(K)(i). Upon information and belief, in exchange for FHFA's promise, the companies' boards agreed not to challenge FHFA's status as conservator.
p.13, Items 40, 41 & 42 from Ackman's Complaint:
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014...aint-2.pdf
Furthermore:
1. Conservatorship was illegal. HERA states 12 grounds for conservatorship. None of these were met.
2. FHFA was not operating as an independent agency as directed by HERA. It was taking it's marching orders from the Executive Branch.
3. Gov used intimidation and coercion to 'obtain consent'. BOD 'consent' was by no means voluntary as indicated in the Berman lawsuit:
Quote:
69. Despite admitting to having “analyzed in great detail the current financial condition of the GSEs” for a four-week period prior to the imposition of the conservatorships, the Government intended to keep this plan secret until the last possible minute. As explained in Secretary Paulson’s memoir, On the Brink, the Secretary met with President George W. Bush only three days before the conservatorships were publicly announced and told him that “[w]e’re going to move quickly and take them by surprise. The first sound they’ll hear is their heads hitting the floor.”
70. In his September 7, 2008 statement announcing this unprecedented Government action, Lockhart misleadingly stated that “ he Boards of both companies consented yesterday to the conservatorship.” However, the Board’s “consent” was by no means voluntary. On the contrary, it was obtained through intimidation and coercion by the Government. Just two days prior to the September 7th announcement, Paulson and other top governmental officials had summoned the senior executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to secret meetings, where they were told that they would either accept Government control within 24 hours or the Government would impose it by force. Paulson misleadingly told them that “[w]e have the grounds to do this on an involuntary basis, and we will go that course if needed.”
71. In a 2009 speech, Mudd explained that “we were given 24 hours to accede to a government takeover – or else the government would effectively go to war against the company.” The FCIC concluded that “[e]ssentially the GSEs faced a Hobson’s choice: take the horse offered or none at all.” Secretary Paulson himself told the Commission that the Government team made “a very strong case so the board of directors did not have a choice” and that he told the Companies that, while the Government had authority to inject capital into them, it would not do so unless they were in conservatorship. This was a dramatically different scenario than what recently had been described by Senator Isakson, in explaining the intention of HERA, as granting “access to the Treasury window” much like the access to capital that is given to banks. In fact, the access to capital from the Treasury was being provided to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on far more onerous and extremely costly terms, which were severely detrimental to the private property interests of their shareholders, and the boards of directors at the Companies were not given any real choice in the matter. As Paulson later explained to the FCIC, “I believed the very best way to get them to agree on a friendly basis was to say ‘there’s a hard way and an easy way, and we hope and expect them to take [the] easy way. Which they did.[’]”
http://www.restorefanniemae.us/berman
4. In addition, "Treasury exercised it's emergency authority to purchase securities of the companies". A state of emergency at that time did not exist. A state of emergency had not, at any time, been declared by the Federal Government. Warrants are null and void.
Quote:
As far as an "agreement" being made...it was pointed out that I was incorrect when the warrants were actually issued...it was AFTER the boards agreed to conservatorship. So...based on that, the BOD of both companies had no say in the matter...the director of FHFA was in total control and had/has absolute power of decision.
Per the Pershing court filing - page 13 item 41 & 42
https://timhoward717.files.wordpress.com/2014...aint-2.pdf
Now the question is...did FHFA lie to the BOD...or did the BOD agree prior to C-ship...we don't know. I don't think there is a public record of those conversations...could be there is...maybe we will get some good stuff about this coming out in court. I would venture we will never know that answer, but I would certainly like to know if the BOD tossed us under the bus as well to appease the political machine.
Those bollies are getting really tight!
I'm long and up 730%. I'm not an old lady either.
